76 replies to this topic

[keninsc]

Quote

Ken - mind if I pick your brains about some supposed Yowie tracks via PM?

Not at all, I'll do the best I can.

[Stardrive]

Night Walker, on 26 January 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

No problem:-

How was I to know Ken has REAL tracking experience? Most people don't even when they say they do. I don't claim to be psychic, you know, so I went for the most obvious conclusion (for me).

That is correct, so knowing your not psychic and capable of not knowing all the facts, you still seemed adhement he got the information from you. Hence my curiosity.

Quote

Jumping to conclusions is what people routinely do even if the reasoning and/or conclusions turn out to be incorrect/false. Human perceptions, cognitions, memories, and emotional responses are fallible - far more so than most seem to be aware. Such human fallibility is central to the Bigfoot phenomenon even if experiencers/believers don't think it applies to them ("I KNOW what I saw!", etc).

If one comes to conclusions without asking questions or researching to ascertain the facts, then an assumption is born. As far as "I know what I saw", that's all subjective and only relative to the subject being discussed. I don't make a habit out of telling people what it is they saw unless they don't know what it is they saw and describe it to me for help in identification. And even at that I can only provide a best guess since I wasn't there to witness it myself. Furthermore, the last statement makes another assumption by stating that experiencers/beweevers don't think they are capable of being wrong.

[Stardrive]

keninsc, on 25 January 2013 - 01:08 AM, said:

I see a crack. It's plain as day as well as what appears to be a dimple just above the buttocks. I also see where the hair is darker and thicker down the upper spine.

From the hoax perspective, where the arm meets the shoulder looks suspect.

[Night Walker]

Stardrive, on 27 January 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

That is correct, so knowing your not psychic and capable of not knowing all the facts, you still seemed adhement he got the information from you.

How so? I have acknowledged my error...

Stardrive, on 27 January 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

Furthermore, the last statement makes another assumption by stating that experiencers/beweevers don't think they are capable of being wrong.

That is my experience when discussing Yowie claims with various people. I don't mean to suggest that it applies to all but it is interesting to note how often a claimant's confidence in his/her sighting/experience is inversely proportional to the actual evidence. There often seems to be a NEED to believe. Admittedly, the sensational option is far more attractive than the mundane...

[Stardrive]

Night Walker, on 27 January 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

How so? I have acknowledged my error...

My mistake, I wasn't clear that I was only clarifying as to why I inquired in the first place, which you left off the quote.

Quote

That is my experience when discussing Yowie claims with various people. I don't mean to suggest that it applies to all but it is interesting to note how often a claimant's confidence in his/her sighting/experience is inversely proportional to the actual evidence. There often seems to be a NEED to believe. Admittedly, the sensational option is far more attractive than the mundane...

Depends on how sensational the sighting. I agree it's prudent to find a more mundane/plausable explanation before taking a leap into the unknown. I've never interviewed a sighting witness so I'm in the dark on that and am left to take your word for it, which I happen to trust. But you have to remember until such a creature is turned into science for study, even compelling "evidence" is inconclusive at best.  It could be that the claimant really saw an uncatalogued by science creature because without you being there when it happened, you'll never really know for a fact what it was they actually saw. A guess would be the best anyone could do under such circumstances.

I wouldn't put much stock in "the need" to believe. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of those that don't (believe).

[QuiteContrary]

Stardrive, on 27 January 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

My mistake, I wasn't clear that I was only clarifying as to why I inquired in the first place, which you left off the quote.


Depends on how sensational the sighting. I agree it's prudent to find a more mundane/plausable explanation before taking a leap into the unknown. I've never interviewed a sighting witness so I'm in the dark on that and am left to take your word for it, which I happen to trust. But you have to remember until such a creature is turned into science for study, even compelling "evidence" is inconclusive at best. It could be that the claimant really saw an uncatalogued by science creature because without you being there when it happened, you'll never really know for a fact what it was they actually saw. A guess would be the best anyone could do under such circumstances.

I wouldn't put much stock in "the need" to believe. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of those that don't (believe).

Bolding and underscoring are mine

I have trouble with saying this. Imo, I honestly don't think I should have to say "Okay, I guess you could have seen an 8 foot 600 lb animal unknown to science while camping in Ohio at Salt Fork State Park."
It is just too big a leap of logic and science to make any sense to me to admit you could be right. As if I have no other alternative...

Don't know if I'm explaining it well enough. Or maybe I read your post wrong, jumped to conclusions.

*P.S. You know I am a skeptic, Stardrive, and I am not trying to be demeaning here. We've talked before. I am just offering how I look at it differently.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 27 January 2013 - 11:52 PM.

[Night Walker]

The "need to believe" thing is not about the non-shortage of non-believers but about the relative exclusivity of true-believers and/or make-believers who claim multiple sightings/experiences - it's a sub-cultural status thing.

There is good reason that even compelling evidence is inconclusive at best and it has nothing to do with a creature as yet uncategorised by science - I don't mind declaring that Yowie/Bigfoot simply does not objectively exist (subjective existence is another story). But if the Yowie/Bigfoot doesn't exist then what is it? Or, more accurately, what is going on? The answer has always been right in front of us but it is not as sexy as the mystery/fantasy of what could be out there. Enchantment is important. Believers and skeptics are simply partaking in the same merry dance that has been going on for at least the last few hundred years and in various guises. Why should the Yowie/Bigfoot phenomenon be any different?

[keninsc]

That's true, so many people jump on the believer bandwagon like mad at times. And sadly, won't even consider the possibility that there's a problem with what they're buying into. "They have foot prints, look here are the casts." Yes, but I can make all the fake footprint you want by attaching fake feet to an old pair of boots and stamping around with them. There have been any number of hoaxer come forward and claim they made them. So which are real and which are fake? I don't know, but I have seen on the BFRO's website foot prints reported to be from a Bigfoot that looked like double prints of a bear.......from what I could make out. And when I mentioned it got shouted down and even got a warning from, not one, not two but three, moderators. Telling me basically to ****, that was from one of their "trained" field investigators.

DNA, so far I've seen none of the results, the stuff what's her name is supposed to have in peer review now has yet to come out yet.......and honestly, I'm not holding my breath. People claim to have all sorts of things. Hell, there's a good-old-boy in Mississippi who claimed on Coast to Coast AM to have two bodies which has never been followed up on. Not sure how that one turned out, I'll have to follow that one up. Then you have Todd Standing and others like him who can lie and sound convincing and they turn up constantly on various TV shows.

Personally, until someone comes up with a body, I'm not putting any stock in anything.

[tendo]

look at these...they weren't walking...they were pressed straight down to ensure clear prints. BS.

[CRIPTIC CHAMELEON]

Maybe the bigfoot was on leisurely stroll, plus walking down hill you take shorter steps or maybe it might of been carrying a baby squatch and I have walked down roads where the dust can leave really clear prints like that. I just cant see why they would fake foot prints as the patty footage is so convincing. ?  

[QuiteContrary]

keninsc, on 25 January 2013 - 01:08 AM, said:

Got this off Jeffrey Meldrum's Facebook page. I think it's rather interesting.

Okay,  I was a afraid to Google "Great Ape butts", as per the customized ads I'd get in return , so just a guess here butt...

I tend to think of human butts as being one area on the body with the least hair. Shouldn't Patty's show some signs of wear? Her butt hair is so even with her back hair. She looks older to me, not some juvenile for sure. She sits on rocks, twigs, pebbles, bark, etc? One could compare her backside to other Great Apes, but is that a fair comparison? Who should we compare her to...other Great Apes or humans? Who knows, I guess.

[QuiteContrary]

P.S Apparently the evolution and development of human hair patterning is a mystery/puzzle. Haven't read the article yet.

http://www.biol.ttu....airEvo-Devo.pdf

Yet, despite the growth pattern I wonder about the wear or rather non-wearing of Patty's hair.

[keninsc]

Actually, I've sort of wondered about hair wear patterns myself over the years. You see a picture of a Biggy and vary often it's got relatively short hair, however a lot of descriptions talk about them having very long hair.....are there short and long haired Biggies? Maybe their hair wears down? Maybe they shed, much like cats and dogs? The PG film shows no real wear, the "coat" is pretty uniform. Which adds some credibility of it being a costume and not a real Bigfoot.

[Stardrive]

Night Walker, on 28 January 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

The "need to believe" thing is not about the non-shortage of non-believers but about the relative exclusivity of true-believers and/or make-believers who claim multiple sightings/experiences - it's a sub-cultural status thing.

To claim it's some sort of universal human need, then back-pedal to say it's only exclusive to a small sub-culture, just sounds to me like you might want to re-examine your position.

Quote

There is good reason that even compelling evidence is inconclusive at best and it has nothing to do with a creature as yet uncategorised by science

That is false. Your only kidding yourself.

Quote

- I don't mind declaring that Yowie/Bigfoot simply does not objectively exist (subjective existence is another story). But if the Yowie/Bigfoot doesn't exist then what is it? Or, more accurately, what is going on? The answer has always been right in front of us but it is not as sexy as the mystery/fantasy of what could be out there. Enchantment is important. Believers and skeptics are simply partaking in the same merry dance that has been going on for at least the last few hundred years and in various guises. Why should the Yowie/Bigfoot phenomenon be any different?

Some seek physical evidence, some seek psychological reasons. I wish I had more time today, but i have to be on my way. I'd like to continue this debate, so i'll be back as soon as possible.

QC, you're a doozy....   LOL. (just kidding of course). Heck I'll take all of you on, just not today. I'll lose, yes, but not before I give you a good run for your money.

Edited by Stardrive, 30 January 2013 - 10:24 PM.

[QuiteContrary]

Stardrive, on 30 January 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

QC, you're a doozy....   LOL. (just kidding of course).

No, you're correct. I have a.... ummm.... "challenging" personality, to put it politely.
Clarity is not my strong suit and usually only I get my weird sense of humor.
But I am harmless... on Fridays